Phillip Alvin Rodriguez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 161st District Court of Ector County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed July 15, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-19-00329-CR ___________ PHILLIP ALVIN RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. B-17-0410-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION At his jury trial, Appellant, Phillip Alvin Rodriguez, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder. The jury found Appellant guilty of murder, found that he had not acted under the immediate influence of sudden passion, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fifty years and a fine of $10,000. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and an explanatory letter. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. In his response, Appellant raises various contentions, and this court has considered each of them. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. In the judgment, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay court costs, including a Time Payment Fee of $25. In light of the recent opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Dulin, we conclude that the time payment fee must be struck in its entirety as We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 2 prematurely assessed. See Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 & n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). When the trial court erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should modify the trial court’s judgment to remove the improperly assessed fees. See Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment and the bill of costs to delete the time payment fee of $25, without prejudice to a time payment fee being assessed later “if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, [Appellant] has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes.” See Dulin, 620 S.W.3d at 133. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the time payment fee of $25; and, as modified, affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM July 15, 2021 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
